R v Iakopo
[2022] NZHC 1915
•5 August 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CRI-2020-019-006031
[2022] NZHC 1915
THE QUEEN v
MOSE DOUGLAS IAKOPO
Hearing: 5 August 2022 Counsel:
J N Hamilton for Crown
T C Tran and A N Gray for Defendant
Judgment:
5 August 2022
SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J
Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton. T C Tran, Hamilton.
A N Gray, Hamilton.
R v IAKOPO [2022] NZHC 1915 [5 August 2022]
Charges
[1] Mr Iakopo, you are for sentence on three charges relating to the supply of methamphetamine:
(a)Conspiring to supply methamphetamine, which was charge 3;1
(b)Offering to supply that drug, which was charge 15;2 and
(c)Participating in an organised criminal group, which was charge 24.3
[2] Dealing in methamphetamine is punishable by imprisonment for life. Participating in an organised criminal group is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
[3] You accepted a sentence indication I gave 26 May this year. I sentence you in accordance with that indication.
Facts
[4] You and your partner were street-level dealers of methamphetamine. You assisted your partner in her role, and also dealt directly with a supplier higher in the chain of command. You also obtained methamphetamine for your own consumption.
[5] On 5 September 2020, you contacted the supplier and discussed the supply and sale of methamphetamine. You told the supplier people were “hungry” because there was “nothing around” and the two of you could “make a killing” if you were able to supply the drug. You agreed to meet, but the meeting did not occur due to a breakdown in communication. This explains the charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine.
[6] Between 20 October 2020 and 11 November 2020, you offered to supply methamphetamine on five separate occasions. The quantity was specified on each and
1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A)(a); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act, s 6(1)(c); maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A; maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
totalled four grams. This explains the lead charge of offering to supply methamphetamine.
[7] Between 13 and 19 October 2020, you were involved in the attempted retrieval of a package of methamphetamine from a courier depot. You made inquiries with the courier company in an effort to locate the package. The attempt failed as the package had already been intercepted by Police. This accounts for the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.
Starting point
[8] Sentencing in this context turns on role, quantity of drugs and personal circumstance.4
[9] You offered to supply a total of four grams of methamphetamine. You functioned as a street-level dealer under the direction of others. However, your conversation with the supplier implies you had some awareness of the scale of the operation and an expectation you might profit financially. The Crown advances a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment. You advance a two-year starting point. I adopt a two-year and two-month starting point. I add six months for participating in an organised criminal group, a figure agreed by everyone. You willingly acted with the aim of furthering the enterprise. Fortunately, Police thwarted your efforts.
Previous convictions
[10] You have three earlier convictions for dealing methamphetamine, for which you have served sentences of imprisonment. You have two convictions for selling cannabis. You have a more recent conviction for violence and several earlier ones for theft and property offences. Your drug convictions are unquestionably relevant. The Crown argues they should result in another year. This figure is too high. I adopt that which you suggest: an uplift of six months. This produces an overall starting point of three years and two months’ imprisonment.
4 Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648.
Discounts
Guilty plea
[11] You were charged 1 December 2020. You pleaded guilty on 1 June this year following the sentence indication on 26 May. Trial was to begin 31 October this year. I discount the sentence by 15 percent for your guilty plea.
[12] When I gave the sentence indication, I said there may be other mitigating factors. I now have more information: a pre-sentence report; a cultural report, and three letters summarising your recent involvement in rehabilitative programmes while on EM bail.
Background, addiction and rehabilitative efforts
[13]Given my next remarks, I pause to acknowledge the presence of your father.
[14] You grew up in a stable and loving home and were always provided for. There was no violence in your home, or misuse of drugs or alcohol. Your parents have always been Christians and the church was part of your life. Your parents continue to provide you support, including an address while you on electronically monitored bail. Your two older brothers are also supportive. In short, you have been the beneficiary of a good upbringing.
[15] You were introduced to cannabis when you were 14. You took to smoking it at least twice a week. This resulted in your expulsion from school. You first starting using methamphetamine as a teenager. Your use of that drug escalated in your 20s. At the peak of your addiction, you were smoking around a gram a day, which you obtained through associates of the Mongrel Mob. Although your immediate family had no gang affiliations, you grew up in a neighbourhood with a strong gang presence. You have associated with the Mongrel Mob since you were a teenager. You started dealing methamphetamine when you lost a good job. You acknowledge you were attracted to “fast money” and needed drugs to support your addiction. This lifestyle was interrupted by two periods of incarceration for your dealings in methamphetamine.
[16] Mr Tran argues a discount in the range of 15 to 20 percent is appropriate for your addiction. He also argues an additional discount of 10 percent is warranted for your rehabilitative efforts while on EM bail, and your prospects of rehabilitation. At the time of the pre-sentence report, you self-reported as being methamphetamine-free for 178 days. You have been living with your parents on EM bail and say you have reconnected with your Christian faith, attended drug counselling regularly, and experienced a “spiritual awakening”. You say you would like to become a social worker and gain a formal qualification in that field.
[17] Your pre-sentence report is reasonably positive. Its writer considers you appear to have accepted the consequences of your offending and made “progress” with “rehabilitative interventions”. Your parents say they have their son back. A brother says there has been “a big change” in you.
[18] You have completed a “Living Free” out-patient drug programme. You have attended 12 counselling sessions and are active in hosting online Narcotics Anonymous meetings.
[19] I deduct a total of 15 percent for your addiction to methamphetamine, rehabilitative efforts, and prospect of rehabilitation. This figure represents a circumspect approach; you have been at this juncture before and still dealt drugs.
Time on EM bail
[20] You have been subject to strict EM bail conditions (including a 24-hour curfew) since 22 December 2020 (just over 19 months), without breach. Mr Tran argues this should result in a further discount of seven or eight months. This figure is a little too high. I deduct four months.
[21] This produces a notional sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment. Home detention is therefore available.
[22] Your pre-sentence report recommends home detention on the basis it may provide “a more suitable avenue to support [your] continued engagement with …
support networks and maintain a pro-social lifestyle”. In short, home detention is commended on the basis it may foster your rehabilitation.
[23] I accept the recommendation, for the reasons given. Sending you to prison may undermine your rehabilitation and in turn, harm the community.
Sentence
[24] Mr Iakopo, please stand. On all charges, I sentence you to 10 months’ home detention on the conditions identified in the papers, including special conditions.
[25] I want to speak to you directly, or more directly. You have been given a significant chance. You have family support. Do not throw that in their face or the Court’s. Understood?
[26]Stand down, thank you.
……………………………..
Downs J